require that the remains must be returned once the victim has been clearly identified; in other words, when a positive identification has been made. In this regard, the Minnesota Protocol stipulates that “the body must be identified by reliable witnesses and other objective methods.”79 74. Furthermore, the Court has considered that the suffering and death of an individual, due to a fire, causes the closest next of kin a non-pecuniary damage inherent in human nature, which does not need to be proved.80 75. Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims who died in the fire, because of the suffering they experienced owing to the acts and omissions in the delivery of the remains of their deceased family members (Annex C). VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention under the friendly settlement agreement) 76. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,81 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation82 and that this provision reflects a customary law that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.83 77. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and according to law.84 The Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights violated, repair the consequences of the violations, and establish compensation to redress the damage caused. 78. Taking into consideration the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties in order to provide reparation to the victims in this case, which has been endorsed by this Court (supra para. 21), and the significance and enormity of the violations that have been 79 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205 para. 318. See also: United Nation Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol). UN DOC E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 80 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 7, para. 108, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212. 81 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 82 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 276. 83 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62, and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 276. 84 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 278. 23